JUDGMENT Diwakar Purohit is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 1.4.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 27038 of 2011 (Diwakar Purohit, Asstt. Electrician v. State of U.P. & others) wherein the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order of compulsory retirement passed by the Principal of Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi by which petitioner appellant has been compulsory retired. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner appellant was appointed as Assistant Electrician in the Medical College in the year 1981. During service, being aggrieved by non-payment of salary on the post of Assistant Electrician, he filed a writ petition no. 28261 of 1995 claiming salary on the basis of equal pay for equal work. According to the petitioner appellant, to attend emergency duty the petitioner appellant was provided one vacant portion of his own official quarter by the Deputy Superintendent of the Medical College. Subsequently, an order dated 20.3.1989 was passed by the Principal of the Medical College for recovery of rent from 3.12.1983 to 30.4.1995 and from 1.11.1995 to 31.1.1999 amounting to Rs. 5040/- from the salary of the petitioner appellant at the rate of Rs. 336/- per month in 15 instalments. Aforesaid amount was recovered from the salary of the petitioner appellant and again, when petitioner appellant remained in unauthorised occupation of the said house, an order dated 21.1.2003 was passed whereby a sum of Rs. 2,96,285/- was directed to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner appellant at the rate of Rs. 3871/- per month since 18.3.1996. Thereafter, vide order dated 3.3.2003 passed by the respondent no. 3-Chief Medical Superintendent, the petitioner appellant was directed to attend night duties from 8 pm to 4 am in the hospital. It appears that the petitioner appellant filed one Original Suit No. 110 of 1996 (Diwakar Purohit v. Principal, Medical College, Jhansi & others) in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division regarding the accommodation in his possession. It appears that one Suit No. 72 of 2003 under the Public Premises Act filed by the petitioner appellant was also pending and, therefore, in the light of the aforesaid, the petitioner appellant requested that the deduction of Rs. 1650/- per month, which was being made towards arrears of rent, may not be made. It appears that one Suit No. 72 of 2003 under the Public Premises Act filed by the petitioner appellant was also pending and, therefore, in the light of the aforesaid, the petitioner appellant requested that the deduction of Rs. 1650/- per month, which was being made towards arrears of rent, may not be made. Wife of the petitioner appellant Smt. Saroj Purohit has also filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 42895 of 2007 with the prayer that the representation of the petitioner appellant dated 18.7.2007 may be decided by the respondent no. 3. When her representation was not decided, she filed a Contempt Application No. 4376 of 2007 against Dr. Ganesh Kumar, the then Principal of the Medical College, in which after hearing the parties this Court vide order dated 13.12.2007 issued notices to the respondent no. 4, which is pending for orders. It is further alleged that since the salary of the petitioner appellant was stopped since March 2008, the petitioner appellant approached Human Rights Court/Additional District Judge, Jhansi by means of filing a Case No. 1 of 2008 wherein summons were also served upon Dr. Ganesh Kumar, Principal of the Medical College. Certain allegations regarding marking attendance in the attendance register have also been made that the same have been manipulated at the instance of the respondent no. 3 with the assertion that the petitioner appellant was continuously discharging his duties but due to non-availability of the attendance register for a certain period, he could not mark his attendance and one attendance register with his single signature was prepared as per oral direction of the respondent no. 3. Allegation is that the order of the compulsory retirement dated 22.9.2008 was passed by the Principal of the Medical College as he had received summons/order dated 9.10.2008 issued by the Human Rights Court/Additional District Judge, Jhansi and notice issued by this Court in the contempt petition. The order of compulsory retirement was published in the newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' on 5.10.2008. 3. Accepted position is that at no point of time petitioner appellant proceeded to question the validity of the said order of compulsory retirement and petition has been filed in the year 2011 and, thereafter, counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged along with other affidavits and writ petition in question has been dismissed, thus giving occasion to petitioner appellant to prefer the present appeal before this Court. 4. Sri Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner appellant, submitted with vehemence that in the present case authority of compulsory retirement has been colourably exercised without any lawful justification and basis by the Principal unilaterally without there being any recommendations made by Screening Committee and, as such, this Court should interfere in the matter and accord relief to the petitioner appellant. 5. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has contended that impugned order in question is not a punishment rather in public interest deadwood has been sought to be removed from the college and, as such, no interference should be made by this Court and special appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. In order to appreciate respective arguments, Rule 56 of F.H.B. Vol. II Part II to IV is being quoted below: "56 (a) Except as otherwise provided in that Rule, every Government Servant other than a Government servant in inferior service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty eight years. He may be retained in service after the date of compulsory retirement with the sanctioned of the Government on public grounds, which must be recorded in writing but he must not be retrained after the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances (b) A Government servant in inferior service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years. He must not be retained in service after the date, except in very special circumstances and with sanction of the Government. (c) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) or clause (b) the appointing authority may at any time by notice to any Government servant (whether permanent or temporary) without assigning any reason, require him to retire after he attains the age of fifty years or such Government servant may by notice to the appointing authority, voluntarily retire at any time after attaining the age of (forty five years) or after he has completed qualifying service for twenty years. (d) The period of such notice shall be three months: Provided that- (i) any such Government servant may by order of the appointing authority without such notice or by a shorter notice be retired forthwith at any time after attaining the age of fifty years and on such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances if any for the period of the notice or as the case may be for the ;period by which such notice fall short of three months at the same rates at which he was drawing immediately before his retirement; (ii) It shall be open to the appointing authority to allow a Government servant to retire without any notice or by a shorter notice without requiring the Government servant to pay any penalty in lieu of notice: Provided further that such notice given by the Government servant against whom a disciplinary proceeding is pending or contemplated, shall be effective only if it is accepted by the appointing authority, provided that in case of a contemplated disciplinary proceeding the Government servant shall be informed before the expiry of his notice that it has not been accepted. Provided also that the notice once given by a Government servant under clause (c) seeking voluntary retirement shall not be withdrawn by him except with the permission of the appointing authority. (e) A retiring pension shall be payable and other retirement benefits if any shall be available in accordance with the subject to the provisions of the relevant rules to every Government Servant who retires or is required or allowed to retire under this rule. Provided that where a Government servant who voluntarily retires or is allowed voluntarily to retire under this rules the appointing authority may allow him for the purposes of pension and gratuity, if any the benefit of additional service of five years or of such period as he would have served if he had continued till the ordinary date of his superannuation whichever be less. Explanation - (i) The decision of the appointing authority under clause (c) to require the Government servant to retire as specified therein shall be taken if it appears to the said authority to be in the public interest, but nothing herein contained shall be construed to require any recital in the order of such decision having been taken in the public interest. (2) In order to be satisfied whether it will be in the public interest to require a Government servant to retire under clause (c) the appointing authority may take into consideration any material relating to the Government servant and nothing herein contained shall be construed to excluded from consideration- (a) any entries relating to any period before such Government servant was allowed to cross any efficiency may or before he was promoted to any post in an officiating or substantive capacity or on ad hoc basis; or (b) any entry against which a representation is pending, provided that the representation is also taken into consideration along with the entry; or (c) any report of Vigilance Establishment constituted under Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment Act 1965. (2-A) Every such decision shall be deemed to have been taken in the public interest. (3) The expression "appointing authority" means the authority which for the time being has the power to make substantive appointments to the post or service from which the Government servant is required or wants to retire and the expression "qualifying service" shall have the same meaning as in the relevant rules relating to retiring pension. (4) Every order of the appointing authority requiring a Government servant to retire forthwith under the first proviso to clause (d) at this rule shall have effect from the forenoon of the date of its issue, provided that if after the date of its issue, the Government servant concerned, bona fide and in ignorance of that order, performs the duties of his office his acts shall be deemed to be valid notwithstanding the fact of his having earlier retired." 7. Bare perusal of the Rule quoted above would go to show that Rule 56 of U.P. Fundamental Rule provides for compulsory retirement of Government Servant. Bare perusal of the Rule quoted above would go to show that Rule 56 of U.P. Fundamental Rule provides for compulsory retirement of Government Servant. Rule 56 (c) of the aforesaid Rule further provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) or Clause (b) the appointing authority may at any time by notice to any Government servant (whether permanent or temporary) without assigning any reason, require him to retire after he attains the age of fifty years or the Government servant may by notice to the appointing authority voluntarily retire at any time after attaining the age of forty five years or after he has completed qualifying service of twenty years. Sub rule (2) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules provides that in order to be satisfied whether it will be in the public interest to require a Government servant to retire under Clause (c) the appointing authority may take into consideration any material relating to the Government servant and nothing herein contained shall be construed to exclude from consideration, the material referred to in clause (a), (b) and (c). Thus, aforesaid Rule empowers the State Government to retire any Government Servant on completion of 50 years of age or on completion of qualifying service. In the light of this provision various pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court are being looked into: 8. In Shyam Lal v. State of U.P. reported in 1955 (1) SCR 26 , it was held that an order of compulsory retirement is neither a punishment nor any stigma attached to it and it was held therein as follows: "There is no such element of charge or imputation in the case of compulsory retirement are that the officer has completed twenty five years' service and that it is in the public interest to dispense with his further services. It is true that this power of compulsory retirement may by used when the authority exercising this power cannot substantiate the misconduct which may be the real cause for taking the action but what is important to note is that the directions in the last sentence of Note 1 of Article 465-A make it abundantly clear that an imputation or charge is not in terms made a condition for the exercise of the power. In other words, a compulsory retirement has no stigma or implication of misbehaviour or incapacity." 9. In other words, a compulsory retirement has no stigma or implication of misbehaviour or incapacity." 9. In the case of Union of India v. J.N. Sinha reported in 1971 (1) SCR 791 , it was held that an employee compulsorily retired does not lose any right acquired by him before retirement and that the said rule is not intended for taking any penal action against the Government servant and that the order retiring a Government Servant compulsorily can only be challenged on the ground that either the order is arbitrary or it is not in public interest. No other ground is available to a Government servant who is sought to be compulsorily retired from service under the relevant rules subject to the conditions provided therein. 10. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C.D. Ailawadi v. Union of India and others reported in (1990) 2 S.C.C. 328 has taken view that compulsory retirement is not a punishment as it does not take away any of the past benefits. Chopping off the deadwood is one of the important considerations for invoking Rule 56(J) of the Fundamental Rules. Relevant para 8 is being quoted below: - "8. An aggrieved civil servant can challenge an order of compulsory retirement on any of the following grounds as settled by several decision of this Court (i) that the requisite opinion has not been formed; or (ii) that the decision is based on collateral grounds; or (iii) that it is an arbitrary decision. In Union of India v. Col J.N. Sinha this Court held that if the civil servant is able to establish that the order of compulsory retirement suffered from any of the above infirmities, the court has jurisdiction to quash the same. It is not disputed that compulsory retirement under Rule 56(J) is not a punishment as it does not take away any of the past benefits. Chopping off the dead wood is one of the important considerations for invoking Rule 56(J) of the Fundamental Rules. In the instant case, on the basis of the service record, the Committee formed the requisite opinion that the petitioner had ceased to be useful and, therefore, should be retired prematurely. We do not think petitioner has been able to place any satisfactory material for the contention that the decision was on collateral grounds. In the instant case, on the basis of the service record, the Committee formed the requisite opinion that the petitioner had ceased to be useful and, therefore, should be retired prematurely. We do not think petitioner has been able to place any satisfactory material for the contention that the decision was on collateral grounds. Once the opinion is reached on the basis of materials on record, the order cannot be treated to be arbitrary. The service record of more than five years which we have perused shows that the higher officers under whom the petitioner had worked were different and different sets of reviewing officer had also made the entries. Therefore, the reports must be taken to have reflected an appropriate and objective assessment of the performance of the petitioner. 11. In Balikuntha Nath Das and another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another reported 1992 (2) SCC 299 following principles were enunciated are as under: "(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. (ii) The order has to be passed by the Government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest of retire a Government Servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate Court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) malafide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary-in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be perverse order. (iv) The Government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter-of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls. Both favourable and adverse. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls. Both favourable and adverse. If a Government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, moreso, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. (v) an order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by the Court merely on the showing that while passing it un-communicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis interference." 12. In State of Punjab v. Gurdas Singh reported in 1998 (4) SCC 92 , it was held follows; "Before the decision to retire a Government servant prematurely is taken the authorities are required to consider the whole record to service. Any adverse entry prior to earning of promotion or crossing of efficiency bar or picking up higher rank is not wiped out and can be taken into consideration while considering the overall performance of the employee during whole of his tenure of service whether it is in public interest to retain him in the service. The whole record of service of the service of the employee will include any uncommunicated adverse entries as well." Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Vijay Kumar Jain reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1345 has held as follows - "The aforesaid decisions unmistakable lay down that the entire service record of a Government Servant could be considered by the Government while exercising the power under FR 56(c)of the Rules with emphasis on the later entries. FR 56(c) of the Rules read with sub-rule (2), empowers the State Government with an absolute right to retire an employee on attaining the age of 50 years. It cannot be disputed that the dead woods need to be removed to maintain efficiency in the service. Integrity of a Government employee is foremost consideration in public service. FR 56(c) of the Rules read with sub-rule (2), empowers the State Government with an absolute right to retire an employee on attaining the age of 50 years. It cannot be disputed that the dead woods need to be removed to maintain efficiency in the service. Integrity of a Government employee is foremost consideration in public service. If a conduct of a Government employee becomes unbecoming to the public interest or obstruct the efficiency in public services, Government has an absolute right to compulsorily retire an employee is a method to ensure efficiency in public service and while doing so the Government is entitled under Fundamental Rule 56 to take into account the entire service record, character roll or confidential report with emphasis on the later entries in the character roll of an employee. In fact, entire service record, character roll or confidential report furnishes the materials to Screening committee or the State Government as the case may be to find out whether a Government Servant has outlived his utility in service, it is on consideration of totality of the materials with emphasis on the later entries in the character roll, the Government is expected to form its opinion whether an employees is to be compulsorily retired or not. Withholding of integrity of a Government employee is a serious matter, in the present case, what we find is that the integrity of the respondent was withheld by an order dated 13.06.1997 and the said entry in the character roll of the respondent was well within ten years of passing of the order of compulsory retirement. During pendency of the writ petition in the High Court, the U.P. Services Tribunal on a claim petition filed by the respondents, shifted the entry from 1997-98 to 1983-1984. Shifting of the said entry to a different period of entry going beyond ten years passing of the order of compulsory retirement does not mean that its vigour and sting of the adverse entry is not wiped out merely it is relatable to 11th or 12 years of passing of the order of compulsory retirement. The aforesaid adverse entry which could have been taken into account while considering the case of the respondent for his compulsory retirement from service, was duly considered by the State Government and said single adverse entry in itself was sufficient to compulsorily retire the respondent from service. The aforesaid adverse entry which could have been taken into account while considering the case of the respondent for his compulsory retirement from service, was duly considered by the State Government and said single adverse entry in itself was sufficient to compulsorily retire the respondent from service. We are therefore, of the view that entire service record or confidential report with emphasis on the later entries in the character roll can be taken into account by the Government while considering a case of compulsory retirement of a Government Servant". 13. From the decisions, quoted above, it is settled that the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and principles of natural justice are not attracted in a case of compulsory retirement as the same implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour. It is the subjective satisfaction of the appointing authority to retire a person compulsorily. This right is absolute in nature and question of violation of any legal right of an employee does not arise. Very limited scope of judicial review is available in such cases and the Court can interfere only if it is satisfied that the order passed is (a) malafide; or (b) it is based on no evidence; or (c) it is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material and that the order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed merely on the basis that uncommunicated adverse remarks were taken into consideration. Learned Single Judge, in the present case, as malafide has been alleged as the Principal has dealt with the said issue as follows: "Insofar as the allegation of malafide is concerned, although the then Principal of the College Dr. Ganesh Kumar was impleaded as respondent no. 4 to the petition, however no specific allegation has been made against him and this Court did not find it proper to even issue notice to him. The only allegation made against him is general in nature that being annoyed by the contempt petition filed against him by the wife of the petitioner appellant and summons issued by the Human Right Court, the impugned order was passed and he had passed the order while he was working in temporary capacity as Incharge of the college. The only allegation made against him is general in nature that being annoyed by the contempt petition filed against him by the wife of the petitioner appellant and summons issued by the Human Right Court, the impugned order was passed and he had passed the order while he was working in temporary capacity as Incharge of the college. This allegation by itself cannot be taken as allegation of malafide by itself as no further material alleged or placed before this Court to prove his malafide. Undisputedly, the burden to prove malafide was on the petitioner appellant, which in the opinion of the Court he failed to prove. Apart from that this Court finds that there was sufficient material on record for exercising absolute power to compulsorily retire the petitioner appellant and as such, in view of the material available on record, it cannot be said that the exercise of such absolute right by the employer was malafide in nature. The material as noted in the supplementary counter affidavit which came to be filed only after this Court had gone through the original record relating to the petitioner appellant, is sufficient to indicate that as a matter of fact it was only the petitioner appellant who was prima facie able to prevail upon the respondent authorities and instead of warnings having been issued to the petitioner appellant right since the year 1984 nothing could be done by the respondent authorities against him. Hence the ground of mala faide is rejected." 14. Before us nothing has been pointed out or demonstrated from the side of petitioner appellant that the opinion formed by learned Single Judge is in any way arbitrary or unreasonable rather it has been sought to be asserted that without there being any recommendation from Screening Committee, unilateral decision has been taken, as such, malafides be inferred and action taken be disapproved. The submission advanced that in the absence of recommendation of Screening Committee, malafide be inferred, cannot be accepted by us for the simple reason that constitution of Screening Committee for the purposes of screening of candidates for compulsory retirement emanates under Government Order dated 26.10.1985, and the said Government Order in itself in paragraph 7 clarifies the legal status of Screening Committee as follows; %hnd1%"7- Ldzhfuax desVh dh fof/kd fLFkfr&desVh dk dksbZ fof/kd LVsV~l ugha gksxkA os dsoy lacaf/kr fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh ds lek/kku esa lgk;rk ds fy, gksxh o mudh dk;Zokfg;ka Hkh vukSipkfjd gksxhA ewy fu;e 56 esa vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fRr dk fu.kZ; ysus dk vf/kdkj fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh esa lfUufgr gS] vr% os ,sls deZpkjh@ vf/kdkjh dh vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fRr dk fu.kZ; Hkh ys ldrs gS ftuds ekeys Ldzhfuax desVh ds le{k izLrqr u fd;k tk ldsA"%hnd2% 15. Paragraph 7 clarifies the situation that Screening Committee is there to merely assist the Appointing Authority and Appointing Authority is free to take independent decision of compulsory retirement even where matter has not been routed through Screening Committee. Appointing Authority is as such fully competent to take a call for compulsory retirement of an incumbent on his own on the parameters prescribed and merely because he has taken decision on his own without assistance of Screening Committee, same cannot be a ground to infer malafides. 16. Learned Single Judge, on the basis of pleadings and original record, insofar as the contention that since there was no adverse entry for the last three years and no punishment has been awarded to the petitioner appellant, no public interest was involved in the present case and order of compulsory retirement is illegal, has dealt with the issue as follows: "sufficient to note that overall performance on the basis of entire service record is to be concerned and even uncommunicated adverse entries can be considered for this purpose. Overall performance, as per the material available on record, clearly indicates that the conduct of the petitioner appellant was never satisfactory and since 1984 he was being constantly issued warning letters for disobedience of the order of the authorities and not attending the work and remaining absent after marking attendance. Allegation of instigating other employees to refrain from work are also on record. Allegation of instigating other employees to refrain from work are also on record. He was suspended and subjected to disciplinary action twice, he was found running cybercafe and canteen from the premises, which was in his unauthorised occupation and was subjected to payment of arrears of rent of the unauthorised occupied premises. In such view of the matter, exercising powers under Rules 56 considering the entire material on record, the impugned order was passed, which cannot be faulted with. Moreover, Rule 2-A specifically provides that every such decision shall be deemed to have been taken in public interest. Hence, if compulsory retirement is challenged on the ground that no public interest is involved, the onus lay heavily on the petitioner appellant to prove otherwise, which he has miserably failed to discharge." 17. We have the occasion also to peruse the said finding, that has been so returned and what we find from the same based on record that decision has been taken by the Principal of the concerned Medical College in administrative exigency as petitioner appellant has been of no use to the college concerned and has been virtually a deadwood, then, in view of this, once there was sufficient material on record for exercising of power to compulsorily retire the petitioner appellant and the said opinion formed is based on material discussed in paragraph 27 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, then we refuse to interfere with the order dated 1.4.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 27038 of 2011 Diwakar Purohit, Asstt. Electrician v. State of U.P. & others. 18. Special appeal is dismissed, accordingly. Appeal dismissed.